W«<Bc. 


iS^^^^^^'i^S^^^fc.^^^^^^ 


C^.-^^^^^-- 


Wr- 


REPORT  OF  A  SPECIAL  COM 


/CHAMBER   OF   COMMERCE, 


OF  THE   STATE   OF   NEW-YOl^'K', ^^ 


FEBRUARY  lO,   1860, 


®ii  Slaritime  Intcrtourse  in  time  of  Mar.    V 


REPORT  OF  A  SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 


CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE, 


OF  THE  STATE  OF  l^EW-t6kt, 


FEBRUAHY  10,  1860, 


Maritime  Intertourse  in  time  of  Mar. 


JOHN  W.    AMERMAN,    PRINTER, 
No.  47  Cedar  Street. 

1860. 


Ar 


EEI*ORT. 


Me.  Leopold  Bierwieth,  from  the  Special  Committee  on  the 
resohitions,  adopted  by  the  merchants  of  Bremyn,  I)ece,mber  2^», 
1859,  relative  to  the  inviolability  of  private  pr^piirty  >  en  tils' 
ocean  in  time  of  war,  although  belonging  to  citizfego^  or;&,ubjecti3;of, 
the  countries  engaged  in  the  contest,  made  the  follo\niig  fe'poft': 

The  inviolability  of  private  property  at  sea  in  time  of  war  is  a 
question  in  which  no  nation  can  have  a  deeper  interest  than  ours. 
That  question  is  now  being  agitated  throughout  Europe,  and  the 
New-York  Chamber  of  Commerce,  as  one  of  the  principal  organs 
of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  would  neglect  its  mission 
if  it  failed  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  forum  of  public  opinion. 

The  principle,  that  free  vessels  make  free  goods,  was  acknowl- 
edged by  our  Government,  almost  contemporaneously  with  its 
formation.  It  has  ever  since  adhered  to  that  principle,  admit- 
ting all  the  time  the  logical  deductions  thereof,  until,  in  1854, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  submitted  to  the  maritime 
nations  of  Europe,  and  asked  their  assent  to  the  following  pro- 
positions, viz : 

1st.  That  free  ships  make  free  goods,  ^.  e.,  that  neutral  vessels 
protect  enemy's  property. 

2d.  That  the  property  of  neutrals  on  board  an  enemy's  vessel 
is  not  subject  to  confiscation. 

Even  here  our  Government  did  not  stop.  A  gratifying  proof 
of  its  steady  advance  in  liberal  and  enlightened  views  is  found 
in  the  President's  Message  to  Congress  of  Dec.  4, 1854,  in  which 
he  takes  the  broad  ground,  that  private  property  upon  the  ocean 


679938 


should  be  exempt  from  seizure  by  national  ships  of  war  as  well  as 
by  privateers  ;  that  it  should  not  be  captured  nor  molested  by 
any  kind  of  armed  vessel,  but  that  the  same  immunity  which  it 
enjoys  on  land  should  equally  attach  to  it  at  sea,  inasmuch  as  "  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  any  substantial  reasons  for  the  distinc- 
tion now  recognised  in  its  application  (the  doctrine  of  immunity) 
to  such  property  on  land,  and  not  to  that  which  is  found  upon 
the  ocean." 
The  famous  "  Declaration"  of  the  Congress  at  Paris — 

1st.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 
'  ''2d.  The  nelitr'arflag  covers  enemy's  goods. 
' ' '  S^.  jll^eiitfral' goods  lare  not  liable  to  capture  under  enemy's  flag. 

4th.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective, 

is,  in  its  important  features,  nothing  more  than  an  endorsement 
of  the  previously  expressed  views  of  the  United  States ;  neverthe- 
less, the  latter  had  to  refuse  its  adhesion,  because  the  Congress 
insisted  upon  the  indivisibility  of  the  four  principles,  and,  by 
acceding  to  the  "Declaration,"  the  United  States  would  sur- 
render the  right  to  employ  privateers  in  time  of  war.  To  the 
surrender  of  that  right  the  United  States  demurred ;  but,  said 
our  Secretary  of  State,  "  Add  to  the  first  proposition  the  follow- 
ing words:  'And  that  the  private  property  of  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  a  belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted  from 
seizure  by  public  armed  vessels  of  the  belligerent,  unless  it  be 
contraband.'  Thus  amended,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  adopt  it,  together  with  the  other  three  principles  con- 
tained in  the  '  Declaration.'  " 


This  comprises,  as  far  as  generally  known,  the  action  of  the 
respective  Governments  on  the  subject.  The  "  Declaration"  was 
not  amended  as  proposed  by  the  United  States.  What  might 
have  been  done,  had  the  suggestions  of  our  Secretary  of  State 
reached  the  Congress  in  time,  must  remain  a  matter  of  conjec- 
ture, but  the  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Britain,  in  addressing,  a 


.y^' 


few  months  later,  the  merchants  and  traders  of  Liverpool,  tised 
these  words :  "  I  cannot  help  hoping,  that  those  principles  of 
war,  which  are  applied  to  hostilities  by  land,  may  be  e:ctended 
withont  exception  to  hostilities  by  sea,  so  that  private  property 
shall  no  longer  be  the  object  of  aggression  on  either  side."  And 
the  Emperor  of  the  French,  at  the  close  of  the  late  war,  restored 
to  Austria  all  private  shipping  captured  by  French  cruisers 
under  the  Austrian  flag.  Thus  it  may  be  said,  that  the  princi- 
ples, advocated  by  the  United  States  and  Lord  Palmerston,  have 
already  found  their  practical  application  in  France. 

But  it  remains  to  have  these  principles  incorporated  into  the 
Declaration  of  1836,  into  the  Code  of  Maritime  Law ;  and  to 
reach  that  end,  the  European  Congress,  which  is  expected  to 
meet  shortly  at  Paris,  is  thought  to  offer  a  fit  opportunity.  The 
Hanse  Towns  were  the  first  to  move  in  the  matter ;  their  appeal 
has  already  met  with  a  favorable  response  from  many  points  in 
Europe,  and  it  is  not  doubted  that  the  agitation  will  lead  to  the 
desired  result,  if  at  this  juncture  the  voice  of  the  United  States 
be  heard  once  more  in  favor  of  the  best  interests  of  commerce, 
and  of  justice  and  humanity. 

Christianity  and  civilization  have  not  been  able  to  banish  war, 
whatever  they  may  have  done  in  mitigating  its  evils,  and  if  by  a 
solemn  and  binding  "declaration"  war  can  be  made  "an  affair 
of  Governments,"  and  cease  to  be  a  license  for  "wanton  pillage 
and  uncompensated  appropriation  of  individual  property,"  it  is 
the  duty  of  a  right-thinking  people  to  do  all  in  its  power  to  bring 
about  the  change.  Our  Government  hesitates  to  surrender  the 
right  of  employing  privateers  in  time  of  war,  believing  that  by 
the  use  of  that  right  only  can  we  place  ourselves  upon  an  equal- 
ity with  a  great  naval  power  as  to  the  means  for  inflicting  injury. 
It  is  not  our  policy  to  maintain  a  powerful  navy — as  a  perma- 
nent establishment ;  we  consider  it  "  detrimental  to  national 
prosperity  and  dangerous  to  civil  liberty."  If  forced  to  vindicate 
their  rights  by  arms,  the  United  States  are  content  to  rely,  in  a 
considerable  degree,  upon  privateers. 

Although  not  prepared  to  advocate  the  surrender  of  this  pre- 
rogative, except  on  the  terms  proposed  by  our  Government,  the 
Committee,  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting  correct  views  on  the 


subject,  deem  it  their  duty  to  look  at  the  weapon,  not  only  as  to 
its  valiie  in  the  vindication  of  national  rights,  but  also  as  a  ques- 
tion of  ethics.  Privateers  are  not  intended — certainly  not  solely 
or  even  mainly — to  fight  an  enemy's  ships,  but  to  capture  or 
destroy  the  private  property  of  a  people  with  whose  government 
another  government  is  at  war.  It  is  not  love  of  country  that 
arms  and  equips  them,  but  love  of  lucre  ;  not  in  a  nation's  grat- 
itude for  patriotic  and  heroic  deeds  are  they  content  to  find  their 
reward,  but  in  the  prizes  they  make,  in  the  proceeds  of  property 
belonging  to  them  only  by  the  right  of  might.  The  views  respect- 
ing privateering,  its  character  or  nature,  have  changed  within  the 
last  half  century.  It  is  no  longer  the  policy  merely  of  the  law  that 
is  questioned  ;  the  present  age  sees  in  it  a  licensed  violation  of  the 
established  principles  of  morality.  The  assertion  in  a  celebrated 
public  document,  "No  better  reasons  can  be  given  for  the  sur- 
render of  the  right  to  resort  to  privateers  than  for  foregoing  the 
right  to  receive  volunteers,"  will  not  bear  the  test  of  strict 
scrutiny.  When,  during  the  late  Mexican  war,  our  government 
accepted  the  services  of  volunteers,  it  did  not  permit  them  to  go 
whither  they  might  choose,  and  seize  or  destroy  the  property  of 
Mexican  citizens,  but  it  retained  absolute  control  over  their 
movements,  and  used  them  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  fight 
and  vanquish  the  Mexican  armies. 

And  now,  admitting  that  in  former  wars  privateers  were  of 
great  service  to  us,  it  does  not  follow  that  tlie  resort  to  the  same 
means  of  aggression  would  lead  to  equally  satisfactory  results  in 
a  war  at  this  time.  The  party  having  the  largest  amount  of 
private  property  at  sea,  will  be  the  most  exposed  to  injury  from 
privateers.  In  our  last  war  with  England,  the  American  prop- 
erty upon  the  ocean  in  the  shape  of  vessels  and  cargo  was 
truly  insignificant  compared  with  the  English.  Our  privateers 
had  before  them  a  field  covered  with  riches  to  gather  from ; 
while  the  enemy's  privateers  found  nothing,  so  to  speak,  but  a 
barren  waste.  Look  at  the  difierence  now !  Our  mercantile 
marine  equals  in  tonnage  the  largest  in  Europe,  and  the  amount 
of  American  private  property  upon  the  ocean  can  be  counted 
by  hundreds  of  millions,  of  dollars  only  !  No  other  nation  now 
could  tempt  the  privateer  with  richer  booty  than  our's. 


Again,  if  steam  be  the  source  of  wealth  and  prosperity,  it  is 
also  the  most  powerful  engine  for  the  destruction  of  life  and 
property.  The  navies  of  Europe  now  consist  of  steamships, 
and  the  bare  mention  of  this  fact  suggests  almost  insurmountable 
diflSculties  in  the  successful  prosecution  of  privateering  by  any 
other  than  steam  vessels,  and  even  then  not  much  more  than  the 
destruction  of  property  could  be  attempted  or  expected.  To 
bring  the  slow-sailing  prize  into  port,  without  being  overtaken  by 
the  swift  cruiser  of  the  enemy,  will  be  a  rare  exception.  Priva- 
teering will  be  too  costly  and  unprofitable  to  embark  in.  To 
surrender  the  right  of  resorting  to  it  will  not  prove  too  great 
a  sacrifice,  if  thereby  the  immunity  of  private  property  can  be 
purchased. 

But,  we  are  asked,  why  surrender  the  right,  when  there  is  no 
need  to  apprehend  that  the  United  States  should  ever  become 
involved  in  a  great  maritime  war  ?  If  such  a  war  is  to  break 
out,  we  shall  not  be  a  party  to  it.  Be  it  so  !  But  we  dare  not 
overlook  the  identity,  the  solidarity  of  the  interests  of  commerce 
throughout  the  world.  Whether  the  private  property  seized  or 
destroyed  be  called  American  or  European,  the  loss  will  affect 
us  all.  A  commercial  crisis  cannot  sweep  over  Europe  without 
prostrating  America,  and  vice  versa.  The  fate  of  commerce  in  the 
one  hemisphere  shapes  its  destiny  in  the  other. 

And  finally :  However  remote  the  danger  of  any  great  mari- 
time war,  we  cannot  expect  to  be,  for  any  great  length  of  time, . 
without  exciting  and  critical  political  questions,  without  the 
alarm  consequent  thereon,  and  the  ruinous  losses  resulting  there- 
from. What  with  the  destruction  of  confidence  and  the  suspense 
of  business,  the  fear  of  war  will  for  a  time  work  as  much  jnjijry 
as  war  itself. 

But  such  crises,  if  not  entirely  to  be  avoided,  will  become 
more  rare,  if  the  inviolability  of  private  property  at  sea,  in  time 
of  war,  not  less  than  in  time  of  peace ;  its  exemption  from  seizure 
by  national  ships  of  war  as  well  as  by  privateers,  be  solemnly 
guaranteed.  That  guaranty,  it  is  believed,  may  now  be  obtained 
by  an  energetic  expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  and  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  and  with  the  view  of  calling  forth 


8 

sucli  expression,  the  Committee  respectfully  recommed  the  adop- 
tion of  the  annexed  resolutions. 
KespectfuUy  submitted. 

Leopold  Bieewikth,  Chaeles  H.  Maeshall, 

RoBEET  B.  MmnjEN,  Heney  K.  Bogeet, 

John  D.  Jones,  James  G.  King, 

Committee. 

Hesolved^  That  the  perfect  immunity  of  all  private  property 
upon  the  ocean  in  time  of  war,  is  demanded  by  an  enlightened 
sentiment  of  justice  and  the  improved  spirit  of  civilization,  not 
less  than  by  a  due  consideration  of  the  best  interests  of  commerce. 

Resolved^  That  the  Government  of  the  United  States  be  re- 
spectfully solicited  to  take  such  measures  as  it  may  deem  fit,  to 
have  the  principle  expressed  in  the  preceding  resolution  incor- 
porated in  the  code  of  maritime  law. 

Resolved^  That  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the 
Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Boards  of  Trade  in  other  Cities  of 
the  United  States,  with  an  earnest  request  to  aid  us  in  obtaining 
the  important  object  in  view. 


On  motion,  the  above  report  and  resolutions  were  adopted 
and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


UNIVEESITT   OF   CALIFOENIA   LIEEAEY, 
BEEKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
"emand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 

■  ■''tion   of  loan  period. 


^t« 


\ 


Elected  1 

MA'ITHl 
EDWIX 
CHARLl 


On  tht 
ROBERT 

walte; 

ABIEL  1 
CHARLl 


KEC'DLD    JAN  3     72 -2  PM  9  1 


kxhs. 

icill  expire 

TRLIE, 

INNELL, 

JTHROP. 


ms. 
.PS, 

^RSTOW, 
TKLING, 
50»»-7,'29      IeFFERTS. 


fa 
J 


til 


(S^omnr^siontrs  jof  ^ilols. 
ROBERT  L.  TAYLOR, 
CHARLES  H.  MARSHALL, 
ELISHA  E.  MORGAK 


^ubHor«  of  ^rtonnts. 

STEWAirr  BROWN, 
HENRY  K.  BOGERT. 


mm 

i 


Stockton,  Calif. 

PAT.  IAN.  21,  1908 


679938 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


^\y 


